The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, December 20, 2013

Unless
you are President Obama, John Kerry, or an Iranian theocrat, the recent
Geneva nuclear agreement with Iran looks more perplexing every
day. Questions abound regarding what, if anything, the Iranians
actually conceded in Geneva in exchange for significant sanctions
relief. As the answers to those questions trickle in, the situation
looks ever more menacing for Israel and Iran's Arab neighbors. But even
as the Iranian deal increases the prospect of a mushroom-clouded future
Middle East, certain silver linings are emerging.

The
deal struck in Geneva is far from settled. It remains unclear when the
clock begins to run on its six-month duration, or what terms were
actually finalized. The respective sides already disagree fundamentally
on what terms are in the accord, even before the ink has dried on their
signatures. An interim agreement? This is more like a preliminary
introductory provisional interim draft.

Also
worrisome is that the Iranians have proven to be more reliable than the
Obama administration in terms of accurately reporting the contents of
the agreement. Obama and Kerry boasted disingenuously that the
agreement "stops advancement" on Iran's plutonium bomb factory under
construction at Arak and does not "grant" Iran any "right of
enrichment."

Yet
they now concede Iran's claims that, under the deal, construction at
Arak may proceed and Iran may still enrich uranium. Something is very
wrong when the foreign minister of Iran is more credible than the
president of the United States.

The
larger issue is that this administration has been folding up the
American diplomatic and military umbrellas since early in Obama's first
term, when it reneged on missile defense commitments to Poland and the
Czech Republic. America's unilateral retreat from world leadership
became clearer in the Libyan episode, when the administration claimed to
be "leading from behind." And in Geneva, the French stepped up and
took the lead role in responsibly negotiating with Iran.

Troubling
as America's apparent declare-diplomatic-victory-and-get-out approach
to squandering Iranian sanctions may be, it is making other countries
scramble to adjust. And that may prove useful, especially to Israel.

Recent
Mideast realignment has already been working in Israel's favor. Egypt,
following the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood government, has been
extraordinarily cooperative with Israel, battling Islamists in the Sinai
and clamping down on Gaza smuggling.

Jordan,
spooked by hundreds of thousands of potentially destabilizing Syrian
refugees and always under threat from Palestinian activists, has also
moved closer to Israel. Not only did the Jordanians just announce a
joint project with Israel to build a Red Sea-Dead Sea canal, but
recently they took the extraordinary step of backing the Israeli
position over that of Palestinian negotiators in terms of maintaining
Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.

But
most interesting are new developments with the Sunni Arab Gulf
states. The Saudis, terrified of a nuclear Iran and sensing American
abandonment, have been working to form a joint military command with
Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar. While Arab
unity has historically been bad news for Israel, this time feels
different.

In
the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend Mideast, the bigger the enemy, the
more valuable the friend. As Iran becomes a more threatening enemy to
both Israel and the Saudi alliance, Jerusalem and Riyadh become more
natural partners, past enmity notwithstanding.

There
has been a noticeable thaw between the diplomats of the two countries,
including being seen huddling together at various international
forums. At the same time, support for bombing Iran expressed by Saudi
Arabia and Bahrain, revealed in WikiLeaks documents, indicates a
heightening of historical Persian-Arab tensions.

The
Saudi contribution to a military strike against Iran could be
significant. Many observers assume that they would allow Israel access
to their skies for a raid on Iranian nuclear installations. Some even
suggest they would provide staging areas and logistical support for an
Israeli raid.

But
largely ignored is the Saudis' own military strength. They have a
significant, ultra-modern arsenal accumulated through years of massive
military purchases, mostly from America, including 300 combat
aircraft. They don't use their military often, but they are
well-equipped. As American military action seems more remote, Saudi
military capability becomes a bigger factor.

In
another unprecedented sign of rapprochement, Israeli President Shimon
Peres recently spoke from Jerusalem via satellite to 29 foreign
ministers from Arab and Muslim countries at the Gulf Security Conference
-- and reportedly received applause.

We
should be careful not to sugar-coat the situation. The Arab boycott of
Israel is alive and well, and even the Peres address could not
initially be publicized. After years of demonization, deep hatred for
Israel still exists within the populations of the Arab countries.

But
the sands are shifting. Necessity and common interest should lead to
greater Arab-Israeli cooperation and fewer public displays of
belligerence. That should lessen Israel's international diplomatic isolation and reduce Arab Israel-bashing with the Palestinian issue.

So,
for those looking for silver linings to the Geneva agreement, consider
this: Iran and America may have inadvertently done more to advance
Mideast peace than all previous peace plans, conferences, and
initiatives combined.

Abe
Katsman is an American attorney and political commentator living in
Jerusalem. He serves as counsel to Republicans Abroad Israel. More of
his work is available at abekatsman.com.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/even_mushroom_clouds_have_silver_linings.htmlCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

It is inexplicable that the EU
Fundamental Rights Agency has removed its very own "Working definition
of anti-Semitism" from its website, while more than half of OSCE Member
States continue to be in breach of EU laws to monitor anti-Semitic
incidents.Serious questions must be asked of the EU about its resolve to tackle
this form of hatred, when it cannot even agree on how to define
anti-Semitism or comply with the most elementary laws to help combat it.

Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, recently said
anti-Semitism is "a crime against Europe and its culture, against man
and its humanity. To be anti-Semitic is to reject Europe."

Yet, for all the EU's rhetoric condemning anti-Semitism and calling
for urgent steps to combat it, their actions portray a very different
picture.

Take for example the above-mentioned FRA report on anti-Semitism, released November 8th.
The report was an exhaustive study on "Jewish people's experiences of
discrimination and hate crime" in eight EU member states - Belgium,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom –
that combined, make up about 90% of the EU's Jewish population.

An image from the recent FRA report on anti-Semitism.

According to the report, two-thirds of the respondents considered
anti-Semitism to be a problem in those states surveyed, with
three-quarters indicating the level of anti-Semitism in their country
had worsened in the past five years and a quarter saying they were
afraid to openly identify as Jewish for fear of anti-Semitism.

Now comes the inexplicable news that FRA has removed its very own "Working definition of anti-Semitism" from its website.

According to FRA officials,
the "Working Definition" was removed as part of a clearing out of all
"non-official" documents because it was only a "discussion paper" that
was "never adopted."

Although the "Working Definition," initially drafted in 2004 and
which provided for a strong and exhaustive definition of anti-Semitism,
was, regrettably, never formally adopted by the EU, it nonetheless
provided an authoritative source of guidance and expert advice for EU
institutions and member states in the fight against anti-Semitism.

Importantly, the "Working Definition" had also recognized that the
vilification of Israel, and Israelis, as a form of anti-Semitism today.

It is simply unfathomable that an organization tasked with providing
guidance and leadership on combating anti-Semitism, and which only weeks
ago released a major report on the unprecedented rise in anti-Semitism
across Europe, would now remove even the tenuous definition of the very
crime it seeks to combat.

In addition to FRA, there is another major European-based body, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is
tasked with, among other matters, combating anti-Semitism.

It is perhaps no coincidence that the OSCE takes significant guidance on this from FRA.The central part of OSCE's mission is the requirement for member
states to collect information and monitor anti-Semitic incidents in
their home states. Yet, in its most recent annual report for 2012,
also released last month, only 27 of the 57 OSCE Member States
submitted official statistics. Among the countries that did not submit
the required official statistics include: France, Hungary, Greece,
Russia and Belgium -- some of the very countries identified by FRA as
having the highest levels of anti-Semitism.

Quite simply, without reliable data on anti-Semitic incidents, how
can governments and Jewish communities properly assess levels of
anti-Semitism or propose remedies?

With anti-Semitism in Europe having reached a level unprecedented
since the end of the Holocaust, serious questions must be asked of the
EU about its resolve to tackle this oldest and most enduring form of
hatred, when it cannot even agree on how to define anti-Semitism or
comply with the most elementary laws to help combat it.

So what should be done?

First, the EU should be pressed to immediately reinstate the FRA
"Working Definition of anti-Semitism" as the legislative basis of the
definition of anti-Semitism in Europe.

Any definition of anti-Semitism should also be done in conjunction
with battling against Holocaust denial, which is gaining widespread
prevalence with the rise of far-right neo-Nazi movements across many
parts of Europe.

Under current EU law, Holocaust denial is punishable by a jail
sentence of up to three years. However, EU countries that do not have
such a prohibition in their own domestic legislation are not bound to
enforce the EU law. At present, only 13 of the 28 EU member states have
laws specifically criminalizing Holocaust denial.

Concurrently, European governments should also be pressed to monitor
anti-Semitism, as already required under accords reached between the EU
and OSCE.

And lastly, education, education, education. The history of the
Holocaust and its lessons and implications should be compulsory study in
high schools across Europe. People are not born to hate, they learn to
hate.

If Herman Van Rompuy is sincere in saying that "to be anti-Semitic is
to reject Europe," European political institutions must lead by
example, with deeds, not just words.

Arsen Ostrovsky is an International Human Rights Lawyer, with a focus on Middle East foreign policy and international law.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4090/europe-anti-semitismCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by Adam Turner In November, there was some talk of “a march (or rush) to war” against Iran.The Obama Administration used this line
to dismiss those – including EMET – who dared to disbelieve the
sincerity of negotiations regarding the Iranian regime’s program to
develop nuclear weapons, and seek to expand U.S. sanctions against that
nation so as to keep the pressure on them to prove their sincerity.

The major problem with this charge is that Iran and the U.S. are already at war.
And every few years, Iran or its proxies (most especially Hezbollah)
conducts another hostile act, which results in the death or harming of
Americans.

Here are just some of the acts of war Iran has conducted against the U.S.In 1979, Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy, and took
52 (originally 66) of its personnel hostage for 444 days. Iranian
Foreign Minister I. Yazdi, along with other Iranian officials, indicated
official Iranian support for the seizure when he said, “The action of
the students enjoys the endorsement and support of the government.”
Reza Kahlili describes the seizure in his book A Time to Betray: The Astonishing Double Life of a CIA Agent Inside the Revolutionary Guards of Iran:

This was not a rout. It was not an act of passion. It
seemed too managed for that. The people who rushed in seemed to know
one another and to know what to do. Military members of the Guards
arrived quickly. I wondered how they heard about the break-in so fast.
Then the Komiteh, the religious police recently given official status
by Khomeini, came and promised to keep order. But the only thing they
kept orderly was the takeover itself. Busloads of people arrived and
joined the demonstration, another sign that this gathering was not
spontaneous. Within minutes, the protesters controlled the compound.

For its illegal actions, the Iranian regime was cited by the International Court of Justice and by the U.N. through two U.N. Resolutions
for its violation of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961
the international treaty that governs diplomatic immunity.

Iran set up,
continues to support, and often directs, Hezbollah, a State
Department-listed Lebanese terror group that has kidnapped, tortured,
harmed, and/or killed Americans. In 1983, Hezbollah bombed the U.S.
Marine Barracks in Beirut and killed 241 American servicemen who were
sent to Lebanon for peacekeeping purposes. Hezbollah is believed
to have kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Army colonel
William Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Buckley.
It kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992.
Imad Mughniyah, a former senior Hezbollah leader, was, prior to 911, “responsible
for the deaths of more Americans than any other terrorist.” He and two
other members of Hezbollah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, and Ali Atwa, were on the
FBI’s list of 22 Most Wanted Terrorists for the hijacking in 1985 of
TWA Flight 847 during which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered. In 2007,
Hezbollah operative Ali Mussa Daqduq allegedly played a significant role in the killings of five U.S. soldiers in Iraq. In 2011, the U.S. government seized
drug profits linked to Ayman Joumaa, a drug trafficker and money
launderer, linked to Hezbollah, and in April 2013, the U.S. Treasury
Department took action against Hezbollah for working as a drug cartel.

Iran was involved in the 911 terrorist attacks. A U.S. District Judge “ruled
that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in
the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages
to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the
case.” Also, post-911, the Iranian regime protected
members of al-Qaeda, including the son of Bin Ladin, even as the latter
planned and implemented other bombings that wounded or killed
civilians. Because of these and many other actions, the U.S. State
Department describes Iran as the “leading sponsor of anti-U.S. Islamic terrorism.”

This position is neither controversial nor partisan. Jeffery Goldberg noted in The Atlantic, Iran is “is waging war against the United States of America” in Iraq. Michael Ledeen writing in The Weekly Standard, reaches the same conclusion saying, “(T)here is abundant evidence
for Iranian involvement in Iraq, most including their relentless
efforts to kill American soldiers. The evidence consists of first-hand
information, not intelligence reports. Scores of Iranian intelligence
officers have been arrested, and some have confessed. Documentary
evidence of intimate Iranian involvement with Iraqi terrorists has been
found all over Iraq, notably in Fallujah and Hilla.”

These facts have been widely reported. During the U.S. occupation of
Iraq (from 2003-2011), hundreds of American soldiers were killed or
wounded by roadside bombs or other weapons that were constructed, and supplied, by Iran to Iraqi rebels. The Iranians gave these IEDs to both Shiites and Sunnis alike.

Iran has consistently grabbed American citizens and held them hostage. The latest three are:• In 2007, former FBI agent Robert Levinson was seized.
(Even if reports that Levinson is a spy are true, Iran’s response of
making him disappear is unusual and particularly aggressive.)• In 2011, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati was taken while visiting his grandmother.• In 2012, Pastor Saeed Abedini was grabbed while visiting relatives in Iran.

In 2011, Iran plotted
to bomb a Georgetown restaurant to kill a prominent Saudi diplomat.
“The Justice Department unsealed charges against two Iranians — one of
them a U.S. citizen — accusing them of orchestrating an elaborate
murder-for-hire plot that targeted Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi envoy to
Washington and a key adviser to King Abdullah. The Iranians planned to
employ Mexican drug traffickers to kill Jubeir with a bomb as he ate at a
restaurant, U.S. officials said.” Needless to say, this might have
killed dozens, if not hundreds, of American civilians on our own soil.
Luckily, this bombing was prevented.

At the same time, the Iranian regime continues to pour out harsh
rhetoric towards the U.S. Every year since 1979, on November 4th, the
day the Embassy was seized, the Iranian regime sponsors a “Death to America” day. The Iranian regime continually refers to
the United States, as “The Great Satan”, and Israel as merely “The
Minor Satan.” The Iranian regime promotes demonstrations where the
American flag is spat on, burned, or tread upon. They have even turned the Embassy that they illegally seized into an anti-American museum.

Of course, none of these facts really matter to the President, and
his Administration. As we have discovered, they live in a utopian dream
world, where facts do not exist; red lines disappear; lies are true, and peace on earth only requires a little “smart diplomacy” by the Administration.

So, because President Obama believes that the U.S. and Iran are not
at war, then we aren’t. And, according to the argument of the Obama
Administration, their critics are guilty of trying to march us into a
war that – according to international law and common sense – we have
already been embroiled in for almost thirty-five years now.

by Daniel PipesIn April 2013, I published an article with the slightly inaccurate title, "Support Assad."
Better would have been "Support Whichever Side Is Losing in the Syrian
Civil War." Back then, it seemed that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was
doomed; but already a month later, that was no longer the case and eight months on, a consensus has emerged that Assad is slowly winning.

could indeed have a military outcome, and in light of current trends,
that outcome could be a regime victory. The outlines of a regime
strategy for winning the war are visible. This strategy hinges on the
staying power of the regime and its allies, the generation of adequate
forces, operational success, and continued divisions within rebel
forces. It is subject to serious constraints, especially limitations on
the size and effectiveness of regime and associated forces, and "game
changers" could alter its course. But a regime victory is possible—and
that is what the regime is counting on. …

Barring a sudden collapse of the armed resistance, which for the
Islamist core seems unlikely, the regime will only slowly defeat rebel
forces and recover territory. But the regime is implacable and its
allies are steadfast.

As the moderate faction of the Syrian rebellion implodes under the
strain of vicious infighting and diminished resources, the United States
is increasingly looking to hardline Islamists in its efforts to gain
leverage in Syria's civil war. The development has alarmed U.S.
observers concerned that the radical Salafists do not share U.S. values
and has dismayed supporters of the Free Syrian Army who believe the
moderates were set up to fail.On Monday,
the State Department confirmed its openness to engaging with the
Islamic Front following the group's seizure of a Free Syrian Army
headquarters last week containing U.S.-supplied small arms and food. "We
wouldn't rule out the possibility of meeting with the Islamic Front,"
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Monday.
"We can engage with the Islamic Front, of course, because they're not
designated terrorists ... We're always open to meeting with a wide range
of opposition groups. Obviously, it may make sense to do so at some
point soon, and if we have something to announce, we will."

Hudson notes that "Though the Islamic Front is not a U.S.-designated
terrorist group, many of its members hold intensely anti-American
beliefs and have no intention of establishing a secular democracy in
Syria." Well, of course. But that need not be a problem, for neither
side is pro-Amerian or intends to establish any kind of democracy, and
we should not support either side in the hope that it will win, only
that it will block the other side from winning.

In this light, I swallow hard and endorse supporting the Islamic
Front. Again, not support it to win but to live to do battle another day
against the foul Assad regime along with its Iranian and Hezbollah
backers. (December 19, 2013)

Former U.S. government
scientist writes in The Washington Times that if Iran does not uphold
the Geneva Interim Accord, Israel would attack Iranian nuclear
facilities • Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states
would secretly applaud.

The heavy-water reactor at Arak

|

Photo credit: AFP

S. Fred Singer, a physicist
who was formerly chief scientist of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, wrote in The Washington Times on December 15 that the
Geneva Interim Accord on Iran's nuclear programs may trigger Israeli
military action.

"As these talks continue and drag on, look for
a startling development: Israel may attack Iran's heavy-water reactor
-- now being completed near Arak -- arguing that Iran does not need to
manufacture weapons-grade plutonium if its nuclear programs are truly
peaceful as claimed. Not being involved in the interim agreement, Israel
would be free to act," Singer writes.

Singer says that the scenario leading to
military action is predictable. Israel would find out that Iran is
cheating, but this would be disputed by the United States.

Already, Singer writes, the United States and
Iran seem to differ on the issue of the Arak reactor, whose main purpose
seems to be the manufacture of plutonium for bombs. The United States
believes that Iran has committed to no further advances of its
activities at Arak while the Iranian Foreign Minister says otherwise.

"The Arak facility," writes Singer, "is a
relatively easy target: It is above ground, about halfway between Tehran
and Isfahan, but closer to Iran's western border with Iraq. According
to published photographs, it includes a complex of buildings, in
addition to the reactor itself."

"One may imagine that Israel is carefully
weighing the security and political benefits and costs," he writes, "in
addition to the purely military planning of such an attack. It may delay
somewhat Iran's drive for nuclear weapons. It might even cause Iran to
abandon such efforts -- think Moammar Gadhafi -- unlikely, unless there
is a major political upheaval there. It would certainly demonstrate
Israel's willingness and capability to enforce previously set 'red
lines,' and thereby generate respect from others in the region and the
world."

Singer says that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia
and other Persian Gulf states would quietly support such an attack,
along with the U.S. public and Congress, Canada and Australia.

It would be disapproved of by the U.N. and rest of the world.

"The ball seems to be in Israel's court," writes Singer. "That nation
faces a fateful decision with a complex cost-benefit calculation. Yet
in the final analysis, domestic political considerations there may
determine the outcome."

by Daniel Greenfield It’s not unusual for the United States and a Muslim country to be on
the opposite sides of the War on Terror. It is unusual for a Muslim
country to take a stand against terrorism while the United States backs
the right of a terrorist group to burn churches, torture opposition
members and maintain control of a country with its own nuclear program.

But that’s the strange situation in what Egypt’s public prosecutor
has declared “the biggest case of conspiracy in the country’s history.”

The media assumes that the charges accusing Muslim Brotherhood
leaders of conspiring with Hamas and Hezbollah, passing state secrets to
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and plotting to help foreign terrorists kill
Egyptian soldiers is a show being put on for Western audiences. They
couldn’t be more wrong.

This isn’t about winning international PR points. It’s about
destroying the credibility of the Brotherhood in the eyes of Egyptians
and burying it along with what’s left of the Arab Spring in the waters
of the Nile.

Obama assumed that cuts to military aid would force Egypt to restore
the Muslim Brotherhood to power. He was wrong and the latest round of
criminal charges show just how wrong he was.

The charges that the Muslim Brotherhood conspired with Hamas and
Hezbollah to unleash a wave of terror against Egypt go to the heart of
this struggle between the Egyptian nationalism of the military and the
Islamic transnationalism of the Muslim Brotherhood. They paint the
Muslim Brotherhood as not merely corrupt or abusive, the way that many
tyrannies are, but as a foreign subversive element.

These aren’t merely criminal charges. They are accusations of treason.

There are two narratives of the Arab Spring. In one of them, the
people rose up against the tyrants. In the other an international
conspiracy of Western and Muslim countries collaborated with the Muslim
Brotherhood to take over Arab countries.

To destroy the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the state has to do more
than accuse Morsi of abuses of power; it has to show that he and his
organization were illegitimate because they were Un-Egyptian.

That will prove that the differences between Mubarak and Morsi aren’t
incidental. Mubarak may have been thuggish and corrupt, but he was an
Egyptian patriot. Morsi will be charged with being an Iranian traitor
who conspired to take away the Sinai and turn it over to the terrorist
proxies of a Shiite state.

The Egyptian public prosecutor’s charges speak of an Iranian
conspiracy dating back to 2005 that saw Muslim Brotherhood members being
trained by that country’s Revolutionary Guard and by Hezbollah. They
allege that the Muslim Brotherhood had been preparing to declare its own
separatist Emirate in the Sinai if it could not succeed in bringing
Morsi to power.

Egypt had already accused Morsi and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders
of being liberated from prison by terrorist infiltrators. It now accuses
him of importing foreign terrorists to attack Egyptian soldiers (which
provided him with a pretext for bringing the Egyptian military under
control by pushing out Field Marshal Tantawi and putting General Al-Sisi
in command of the Egyptian military) and after Sisi’s overthrow of him,
to intimidate Egypt into restoring him to power.

It’s all about Iran now. Wildly unpopular for its support of the
Syrian government, an Islamic country whose religion the Sunni Muslims
of Egypt do not recognize as Islam, it is the perfect target. The Muslim
Brotherhood’s collaboration with a Shiite power murdering Sunnis is not
just treason; it’s heresy.

But as cleverly convenient as the charges may be, it’s entirely possible that they are also true.There is little doubt that Morsi conspired with Hamas. There is no
reason for him not to have. Hamas is just the Muslim Brotherhood in
Gaza. And it is exactly this sort of transnational arrangement that
makes Arab nationalists distrust the Muslim Brotherhood and its
international network.

Morsi and Hamas’ actions after the murder of Egyptian soldiers in the
summer of last year strongly suggest that there was coordination. Morsi
was quick to exploit the attacks for a domestic power grab and a push
into the Sinai and the Army of Islam, which was allegedly responsible
for attacking Egypt, has worked together with Hamas and looks a lot like
a Hamas effort at plausible deniability.

If there were really any doubt that the Egyptian military believed
Hamas was responsible all along, not just when it became politically
convenient to level those charges against Morsi, the way that it began
treating Hamas even before the overthrow of Morsi should put any doubts
to rest. Even before Morsi fell, Hamas had begun complaining that Egypt
was treating it worse than Israel.

Hamas had every reason to exploit the Anti-Mubarak protests to help
set Muslim Brotherhood members free. And once they were in power, it had
every reason to intervene to keep them in power. The more the Egyptian
military turned on Hamas, the more it was motivated to help Morsi hold
on to power and to restore him to power once he had been overthrown.

Did Hamas really believe that it could work with the Brotherhood to
carve out an Emirate in the Sinai? There’s no way to know. Hamas’
ambitions may have been no grander than protecting its smuggling
network, but it certainly would have profited from a Muslim Brotherhood
terrorist kingdom in the Sinai.

Iran is the joker in the deck. Would the Muslim Brotherhood have
continued a conspiracy with Iran even after taking power?
Ahmadinejad visited Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood was in power and
though he met with a mixed reception, the visit had the air of a victory
lap. Adding to that impression were the Iranian warships passing
through the Suez Canal.

The willingness of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, to draw the
bulk of its support from Iran, made it and its allied Muslim
Brotherhood franchises vulnerable to charges of Shiite collaboration.
Despite Qatar’s infusion of money, Hamas was never able to fully break
with Iran even during the Syrian Civil War and before too long came
crawling back to Tehran.

And now Hamas’ lust for Iranian money and weapons may end up putting a noose around Morsi’s neck.

The trial of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders is Egypt’s
opportunity to frame the events of the last few years on their own
terms. Egyptians are struggling to come to terms with what happened and
they will be told that a foreign conspiracy bringing together Iran,
Qatar and the United States took over their country for a little while
before being forced out of office by civilian and military patriots.

Less than a generation
after World War II, in the midst of a Cold War whose outcome was far
from certain, U.S. President John F. Kennedy famously proclaimed that
Americans would "support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure
the survival and the success of liberty." More than half a century
later, in an era fraught with conflict and tension, it may be time to
ask: Is that still our credo?

In particular, are
Americans still committed to liberty -- a word that has come to sound
old-fangled? Can our friends still rely upon our support -- even when
the going gets tough? Do foes still have reason to fear us -- or have we
become too war-weary to effectively oppose them? And those nations that
profess friendship but seek to ingratiate themselves with our foes --
what are we to do about them?

These questions, I
suspect, will require a great deal more study, thought and debate before
they can be adequately answered. But 34 years after the Iranian
Revolution, and 12 years after the attacks of 9/11, we at least should
know our enemies. And we should have settled on a strategy aimed at
defeating them. But we don't. And we haven't.

Many of us turn away
from an uncomfortable truth: The ideologies most hostile to America and
the West have arisen in what we have come to call the Muslim world.
These ideologies are not just intolerant but supremacist -- which is
why, within the Muslim world, religious minorities face increasing
oppression and, in many cases, "religious cleansing," a trend Western
governments, the U.N. and most of the media avoid.

A majority of Muslims
do not embrace these ideologies. But for a host of reasons -- fear
undoubtedly high among them -- neither are a majority of Muslims
battling them or even denouncing them publicly and without equivocation.

There is this positive
development: In the media resistance to calling a spade a spade is,
finally, breaking down. Take, for example, this recent New York Times headline:
"Mali: French Troops Battle Islamists." That's accurate: The French
have not intervened in Africa to battle "violent extremists."

Former British Prime
Minister Tony Blair -- no conservative -- has been both candid and
articulate in his criticism of those who insist Islamism derives from
"legitimate grievances" that the West needs to address. He does not hold
with those who have convinced themselves that Islamists "are as they
are because we have provoked them and if we left them alone they would
leave us alone. … They have no intention of leaving us alone."

Blair also has made
clear that he does not see the Islamic Republic of Iran as a "normal"
state, seeking stability and interested in nuclear technology only to
keep the lights on in schools and hospitals, or, at most, in response to
legitimate security concerns. Rather, the ruling regime, he has said,
has an ideological agenda, and is "prepared to back and finance terror
in the pursuit of destabilizing countries whose people wish to live in
peace."

That leaves America and
its allies with a choice that Blair phrased concisely: "to be forced
into retreat or to exhibit even greater determination and belief in
standing up for our values than they do in standing up for theirs."

Blair made that
statement in 2007. Over the years since, which alternative have Western
leaders chosen? Recent negotiations between Iran, on one hand, and the
P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the U.S.,
the U.K., France, Russia and China, plus Germany) on the other, have so
far produced a Joint Plan of Action that is intended to be developed
into a comprehensive agreement in 2014. Iran is to get relief from the
economic pressures imposed by sanctions. In exchange, according to
Secretary of State John Kerry, Iran's rulers are to make concessions
that will ensure that they "cannot build a nuclear weapon."

Most Americans are skeptical. A poll
conducted this month by Luntz Global found that only 7 percent of
respondents believe Iranian theocrats when they say they are not working
to develop nuclear weapons. And more than three out of four fear that
the Iranian regime would provide nukes to terrorist groups hostile to
America and the West.

The average American,
it appears, knows better than many within our political elites that
those vowing "Death to America!" are our foes, and that they are
unlikely to become our friends no matter how much "confidence-building"
we do. They know, too, that our allies are those threatened by the same
enemies -- and brave enough to side with us in common defense. But what
are we to make of those nations that are not against us -- but also are
not with us?

For example, despite
the much-vaunted "reset," it's become apparent that Vladimir Putin sees
the diminishment of American power as a Russian national interest, even
if that means he will have a nuclear-armed Iran not far from his
southern border.

Pakistan, founded as
the world's first "Islamic republic" in 1956, can charitably be called
America's least reliable ally. Since becoming nuclear-armed in 1998, it
has been responsible for the proliferation of nuclear technology to any
number of rogue regimes. At high levels within the country's powerful
intelligence services, there are influential individuals whose
sympathies lie with the Taliban and al-Qaida. And does anyone seriously
believe that no senior Pakistani officials knew that Osama bin Laden --
along with three of his six wives and a passel of children -- had taken
up housekeeping in the hill resort of Abbottabad?

Not long ago, the
Republic of Turkey was regarded as the most Western of Muslim-majority
nations, a proud member of NATO. But since Recep Tayep Erdogan, leader
of the Justice and Development Party, was elected prime minister in
2003, Turkish nationalism has taken on an increasingly Islamist
coloration.

The Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia has spent untold billions of petrodollars spreading Wahhabism, a
fundamentalist and bellicose interpretation of Islam, around the world.
At the same time, the Saudis have always felt more secure with
great-power protectors -- the British before World War II, the Americans
after. The Saudis are pragmatic enough to recognize the difference
between a useful enemy (that would be Israel, a state that would never
attack them without provocation) and a genuine threat (that would be
Iran, whose rulers disdain monarchial rule in favor of velayat-e faqih
-- the "guardianship of jurists," meaning mullahs who interpret Islamic
law and combine religious and political power).

Also in this category
of neither friends nor enemies -- what teenagers call "frenemies" -- is
the Emirate of Qatar, which hosts America's most important military base
in the Middle East while funding and directing Al-Jazeera,
the popular Arabic television station that promotes Islamic rage,
anti-Americanism, blood libels against Israelis and Jews, and outrageous
conspiracy theories. In June of this year, Qatari Emir Hamad bin
Khalifa Al Thani was replaced by his son, Tamim. Will the young ruler
move his small but rich and influential state closer to the U.S. and the
West? Or will he seek to accommodate Iran and/or al-Qaida's growing
network? Or will he continue to play both ends against the middle?

Qatar may be an example
of the old adage that nations have no permanent friends, only permanent
interests. I'm not convinced that always holds true. And even if it
does, some nations' permanent interests permanently align. Those
committed to the "survival and success of liberty" are our friends for
the long haul; those intent on the destruction of liberty are not. It's
as simple -- and as complex -- as that.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6713Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Recently it was revealed that money from UK charities may have been filtered to the Islamist terror group al-Shabaab.At the root of its problem is a question of identity and purpose. Is
the Charity Commission -- recently dismissed by the Chair of the Public
Accounts Committee as "not fit for purpose" -- an advocacy group or a
policeman? The new head of the Commission…said such practices risked
bringing the whole sector "into disrepute."

December is traditionally a time when people dig deep in support of
good causes. But even if it is putting money in some carol singers'
bucket, we must have the confidence that the money we are giving is
actually getting to good causes -- and certainly not going towards
activities which run completely against the spirit of charity.

Last week the BBC's Panorama delivered a damning exposé
on some of Britain's most popular charitable organisations. For almost
thirty years, Comic Relief has done a huge amount, at home and abroad,
to help people in the most unimaginable situations, helping children in
war zones and families through famines. But, as so often happens, Comic
Relief appears to be a victim of its own success.

The Panorama investigation showed how, after raising almost £1
billion in recent years, Comic Relief often retains tens of millions of
pounds in its bank accounts. The way in which they and other charities
invest this money will shock many of its donors. For instance, it
invested thousands of pounds in arms and tobacco companies. The program
raised questions about practices at other charities. Save the Children,
for example, was alleged to have changed its campaigning priorities in
order to improve corporate relations with certain energy companies. All
of which opens up a very difficult subject:

Because charities rely on people's good will, and because most do
good work, the whole sector can develop a "halo effect." People assume
that if something says it is a charity, and has charitable status, its
activities are necessarily charitable and good. Sadly, this is not
always true. Just as there are good teachers and bad teachers, good
nurses and bad nurses, so you can have good charities and bad charities.
And while the good can be very good, the bad can be appalling.

Bad charities use the "halo effect" as a kind of smokescreen.
Sometimes -- as in questions of ethical investment -- there are
questions about the input of the charity's trustees. On other occasions
the abuses are so serious that they should really be a matter for the
police.

To take just the most serious example, there are organizations that
still enjoy all the tax and other advantages of charitable status in
this country, but that are actually banned as terrorist entities in some
of our nation's closet allies. Sometimes this is deliberate, sometimes
accidental. Just recently it was revealed that money from UK charities
may have been filtered to the Islamist terrorist group al-Shabaab. Such
activities – covering a range of communities – are a national disgrace.
Yet they continue.

Another area of concern are organizations set up as charities, but
which, in fact, act as the most lavish tax-avoidance schemes. For
instance, the Cup Trust
-- on which Labour MP and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee,
Margaret Hodge has been fixing her sights -- is a registered charity. In
one year, it attempted to claim back £46m from the tax authorities in
Gift Aid on £177m income. Yet in that same year it had given only
£152,292 to good causes. This raises questions of oversight beyond the
activities of any one charity.

Of course the body meant to oversee all charities in the UK is the
Charity Commission. But it is a body rife with problems. It was recently
dismissed by Hodge
as "not fit for purpose." Whether that is a fair description or not is
debatable. But it is certainly an organization with a fearsome task
before it.

At the root of its problem is a question of identity and purpose. Is
the Charity Commission an advocacy group or a policeman? Charity
Commission chairman William Shawcross has recognized that the Commission
must properly and fully carry out the diligent policing role which will
stop wrong-doers damaging the reputation of charities as a whole. It is
not an easy task. There are currently just 41 people available in the
Commission's Investigations and Enforcement unit to deal with the most
serious cases of abuse among those 160,000 charities.

To help him, however, Shawcross has overseen a transformation in the
Commission's board. Only one member from the previous regime remains.
New members include Peter Clarke, the former head of the anti-terrorist
branch at the Metropolitan Police. His experience will make him
invaluable in dealing with the intersection between charities and those
who break the terrorism laws. Another new face, Nazo Moosa -- a highly
respected figure from the world of finance -- will help the Commission
come to grips with the forensic accounting needed to deal with the
abuses which existed during the previous board's tenure.

And as we get to that time of year when charity should be on
everybody's minds, there can be few more important tasks than cleaning
up this issue. Giving generously to worthy causes is an important mark
of a civilized and compassionate society. But for people to give
generously, they must give with confidence. And if that confidence has
been shaken by recent revelations, it must now be mended with great
speed.

The
Obama administration is at pains to tamp down the latest controversy on
the diplomatic front. They are planning to move the U.S. Embassy to
the Vatican. They want it to be close to the United States Embassy to
Italy, which is located in Italy's capital, Rome.

And the Washington Post is pooh-poohing claims by conservatives that this is a downgrading of the U.S. diplomatic presence at the Vatican. The Post is
even threatening to give former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush a "Pinocchio" if
he doesn't knock off his criticisms of the Obama administration for the
supposed closing of the U.S. Embassy.Not at all, explains the Post, helpfully:

In
March, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy signed an
action memo that would move the embassy to the same diplomatic compound
as the embassy to Italy, which is slightly closer to the Vatican. The
transfer would follow the British model: The U.S. ambassador to the Holy
See and the embassy staff would be housed in a separate building, with a different entrance and address:
Via Sallustiana 49. (The embassy to Italy, around the corner, is at
Vittorio Veneto 121.) The U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Rome is
already on the same property, with its own building, entrance and
address (Via Boncompagni 2), having moved there last year.

But
in the world of diplomacy, such signals are sent and received. The
idea of a U.S. Embassy to the Vatican has been fraught with controversy
for decades. President Harry Truman earnestly sought to establish
diplomatic relations with the Vatican as a valued source of information
for the United States. The Vatican could have supplied us with
intelligence about what was going on behind the Iron Curtain.

Truman's
plans failed because of stout opposition from the then-powerful
American Protestant establishment. The presiding bishop of the
Episcopal Church loudly denounced the very idea. Harry wanted to work
with all the Christian believers of the world, to cooperate against the
rising menace of atheistic communism. "If a Baptist [like me] can see
what's toward," an exasperated Truman wrote at the time, "why not a high
hat Church of England Bishop?"

Forty
years later, President Ronald Reagan, a trusted free world leader, and a
popular figure in the American Evangelical community, reached out to
Pope John Paul II. Reagan opened a U.S. Embassy in the Vatican to only
murmurs of disapproval from America's Protestants. With the collapse of
Communism, we saw how important a role the pope and his Polish and
Catholic brethren throughout the Eastern bloc played in that world
historical event.

So
now, President Barack Obama wants to reassure us. He's not downgrading
our U.S. Embassy in Vatican City. He's just going to re-locate
it. And this move has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuits and
vocal opposition of many Catholics to ObamaCare.

Many
Americans of all faiths object to the HHS Mandate that would force
Catholic hospitals and institutions, and businesses owned by Catholics,
to offer health care plans that include drugs that kill nascent human
lives. This is in no way a retaliatory move. Or so all the president's
men -- and women -- keep telling us.

All
the ex-U.S. ambassadors to the Vatican -- Republican and Democrat alike
-- see this move for what it is. They have vocally protested the Obama
administration's slap at the Catholic Church.

Still,
President Obama is determined to go ahead with this relocation. Very
well, Mr. President -- if you want to save funds and improve security,
you can almost always make a plausible case.

How
about moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem? Administrations of both parties have promised this, and
promised it repeatedly. And it has yet to happen. Maybe if the U.S.
stood by its commitments, America's diplomatic standing would be higher
with friend and foe alike.

Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison are senior fellows at the Family Research Council, in Washington, D.C.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/moving_us_embassies_vatican_city_jerusalem.htmlCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Turkey's
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, founder of the Turkish Justice and
Development Party (AKP), has consistently opposed Egyptian President Muhammad
Mursi's July 3, 2013 ouster by Defense Minister 'Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi,
branding it a military coup. Erdogan identifies with the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) movement and, in contrast to many leaders of Arab countries
who backed Mursi's removal, supports the MB's call to restore Mursi to the
presidency, and its argument that his removal came as part of a military coup
against a democratically and legitimately elected government.[1]

In his criticism of supporters of Mursi's ouster,Erdogan
did not spare Al-Azhar Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayeb, saying that history would curse
religious scholars like him.[2]

With the opening of Mursi's trial on November 4, the
Erdogan government again voiced criticism of Egypt's regime and called for
Mursi's release. Additionally, Turkey's ambassador to Cairo denied Arab media
reports that following Mursi's ouster Turkey had hosted meetings of the MB's
global organization.[3]

Erdogan's position against Mursi's ouster generated a
diplomatic crisis between Turkey and Egypt that led Egypt, in November 2013, to
downgrade its relations with Turkey, declare the Turkish ambassador persona non
grata and expel him, and refuse to return its ambassador, whom it had recalled
in August. Prior to this, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry had canceled joint Egypt-Turkey
military maneuvers and scrubbed an agreement to import Turkish cotton.
Additionally, Egyptian security forces shut down the Turkish news agency's
Cairo office. A public campaign to boycott Turkish products and Turkish television
productions was launched in Egypt, and an attorney even filed a lawsuit against
Egyptian President Adly Mansour and Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy demanding
that relations between the two countries be severed.[4]

Ergodan was attacked in numerous articles in the Egyptian
press; they called him narrow-minded and hypocritical, and depicted him as a
leader who strove to be considered moderate and cultured but whose support for
the Egyptian MB revealed his ugly face, his support for terrorism, and his
hatred of democracy and freedom. They also said that his position on Mursi's
ouster was because it signified the fall of the MB regime in Egypt and thus
marked the collapse of his dream of reviving the Islamic caliphate – and also
because he feared that he would suffer a similar fate.

The deterioration in Egypt-Turkey relations also impacted
relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia that was the first to grant Al-Sisi
diplomatic and economic support once he had removed the MB from power. This
found expression in Saudi press articles, published in both Saudi Arabia and London,
which claimed that Erdogan's position towards Egypt was illogical and derived
from his apprehension that his rule is unstable and his fear that the MB's
plans for the entire region would collapse together with his dream to
reestablish an Islamic caliphate.[5]
However, on the official and diplomatic level, no change was discernible in
Saudi-Turkish relations.[6]

It should be noted that Erdogan's views on Mursi's ouster
are not shared by Turkish President Abdullah Gul, who seeks to maintain normal Turkey-Egypt
relations,[7]
and are opposed by Turkish opposition elements.[8]

This
report discusses the Turkey-Egypt diplomatic crisis and public and press
reactions in Egypt to Erdogan's opposition to Mursi's ouster.

Erdogan:
Mursi Is Egypt's Legitimate President; His Deposers Betray The Islamic World

Since Mursi's removal, Erdogan
has on numerous occasions expressed his anger over it, and has termed it a
military coup. He has said on more than one occasion that he considers Mursi
Egypt's legitimate president and that his position on this stems from his great
respect for the Egyptian people, which elected Mursi by a majority of 52% in
free and fair elections. Free elections, he said, are the only way to decide whether
a ruler or a government will remain in power, and where such an election has
been held, no one person is entitled to infringe on the will of all the others
by removing the elected individual. Erdogan added that the forces behind Mursi's
ouster in Egypt sought to do the same in Turkey with the June 2013 demonstrations
at Istanbul's Taksim Square, but they were unsuccessful.[9] On another occasion, he
said: "If we remain silent over the coup in Egypt, we will have no right
to say a word if in the future the same trap is set for us."[10]

Calling Mursi's
ouster a catastrophe, he wondered how the West could remain silent in the face
of the violation of the democratic principles that it claimed to venerate.[11] He also criticized the
Arab countries' support for Mursi's ouster, saying: "The Islamic world is
like the brothers of the Prophet Joseph, who threw him into the pit; as in the
story of Joseph, Allah will disgrace those who betrayed the Islamic world and
their brothers and sisters in Egypt."[12]

In late
August 2013, Erdogan harshly criticized the Egyptian army and Al-Azhar Sheikh Ahmad
Al-Tayeb, saying that both the army and Al-Azhar institutions had overstepped their
role with their participation in a coup against a legitimate president.[13] On another occasion,
Erdogan argued that Israel was responsible for Mursi's ouster.[14] On November 3, 2013, the
day before Mursi's trial began, Erdogan said at a meeting of his party that
"the Raba'a Al-'Adawiyya sign [depicted below][15] has become a global
emblem of condemnation of oppression, persecution and massacres."[16]

On November
21, 2013, as he departed for Russia, Erdogan said that he respects Mursi and admires
his opposition to his trial, and added that he has no respect for his
prosecutors. This was the last straw for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, which
promptly decided to downgrade relations with Turkey.[17]

The
Egypt-Turkey Diplomatic Crisis

Turkey-Egypt diplomatic relations
deteriorated significantly due to Erdogan's position on Egypt's current regime,
to the point where they were downgraded.

The Egyptian
Foreign Ministry first summoned Turkish Ambassador Huseyin Botsali in late
July, and clarified to him that Turkey's statements regarding Egypt deviated
from diplomatic norms and constituted flagrant interference in Egyptian
affairs.[18]

On August 16,
2013, Turkey recalled its ambassador, and at the same time Egypt recalled its own.[19] Egyptian Ambassador 'Abd
Al-Rahman Salah Al-Din said that his return to Turkey would be contingent upon the
results of his country's reevaluation of its relations with Turkey, and that Turkey's
position on Egyptian affairs is more than interference in them but constitutes incitement
of other countries against Egypt. Salah Al-Din added: "Most unfortunately,
the Turkish government is biased towards the MB, even though its relations with
most of Egypt's parties and political and social forces were good."[20]

In early
September 2013, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry announced that although the
Turkish ambassador had returned to Cairo, Egypt's ambassador to Turkey would
return to Ankara only after Turkish interference in Egyptian affairs had
ceased.[21] Similarly, on October 7, Egyptian
President 'Adly Mansour told the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that
the Egyptian ambassador "will not return to Turkey at this time, and will
not [do so] until after the Turkish government acts with responsibility [befitting]
the historic relations between the two peoples and the fraternal
countries."[22]

In late October
2013, it appeared that the Turkish government was softening its tone towards
Egypt, when Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said while on a visit to
Kuwait that because Turkey wanted Egypt to be strong so that it could guarantee
security and stability in the region, it would support any president elected by
the Egyptian people, rather than specific groups or individuals. He clarified
that Turkey's previous criticism of Egypt had stemmed not from disrespect but
from its concern for Egypt.[23] In response, Egyptian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Badr 'Abd Al-'Attey called these statements mere
words, not a formal expression of a position, and added that unresolved problems
with the Turks remained due to Erdogan's statements against the Sheikh of
Al-Azhar and the June 30 revolution – and that these statements called for an
apology. Al-'Attey added that for this reason, the Egyptian ambassador would
not at this point be returning to Ankara.[24]

The Turkish
government's statements on the occasion of the start of Mursi's trial showed
that there was actually no softening in
the Turks' tone vis-à-vis Egypt. In addition to Erdogan's remark that Rabaa Al-'Adawiyya
emblem symbolized the fight against oppression, Turkey's Foreign Ministry
called, in an announcement, for the release of all political prisoners in
Egypt, including Mursi, stating: "Turkey has always stood by the principle
of legitimacy" – that is, it stood by the Mursi government.[25]

In response,
the Egyptian Foreign Ministry called Erdogan's comments "part of a series
of pronouncements and declarations by senior Turkish officials who insisted on
distorting the facts in Egypt and challenging the will of the Egyptian people,"
and added that the Turkish Foreign Ministry's announcement "was a
[further] expression of this and constituted unacceptable interference in Egypt's
internal affairs."[26]

On November
12, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry summoned the Turkish ambassador for a rebuke,
protesting statements by senior Turkish officials that it called "unacceptable
interference in Egyptian affairs";[27] on November 23, it
summoned him again and demanded that he leave the country as "persona non
grata." The ministry stated in an announcement: "The Egyptian Arab
Republic's government has followed with revulsion the Turkish PM's most recent
statements on Egypt's internal affairs, made the day before yesterday [November
21] shortly before he left Moscow. [These statements] constitute a further link
in the chain of his [expressions of] positions and statements that reflect an
unacceptable insistence on challenging the will of the honorable Egyptian
people and mocking its legitimate choices, and constitute interference in the
state's internal affairs. Furthermore, they include lies and distortions of fact..."

The
announcement continued: "Egypt, out of its great esteem for the historic
relations between it and the friendly Turkish people, has repeatedly attempted
to give the Turkish leadership an opportunity to act wisely and to place the
supreme interests of the two countries and the two peoples above narrow
partisan and ideological interests. But [despite this,] this leadership has
gone too far in its unacceptable and unjustified positions – by attempting to
incite the international community against Egyptian interests, by supporting
meetings of organizations seeking to undermine stability in [Egypt – a reference
to the abovementioned meetings of the international MB hosted by Turkey which
Turkey claims did not take place]; and [by making] statements that at the very
least constitute an insult to the popular will that was realized on June 30."

It added that
"in light of the Turkish leadership's continuation of this unacceptable
behavior," the Egyptian government had decided to downgrade its diplomatic
relations with Turkey from the level of ambassador to the level of chargé d'affaire;
to permanently transfer Egypt's ambassador to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry's
general offices in Cairo (i.e. not to return him to Ankara); and to declare the
Turkish ambassador persona non grata and demand his immediate departure from
Egypt. It also clarified: "The Egyptian people and government esteem the
Turkish people and blame the Turkish government for the current state of the relations
between the countries and for its repercussions..."[28]

The Egyptian
Foreign Ministry spokesman noted that relations with Turkey would not be completely
severed and that diplomatic and economic relations would continue, because the
true measure [of the relations between the countries] was Egypt's relationship
with the Turkish people, which opposes Erdogan's position.[29]

Responding to
the Egyptian Foreign Ministry's announcement, Erdogan again flashed the Rabaa
Al-'Adawiyya sign, as he participated in a November 24 conference in the
northern Turkish city of Trebizon. He said: "We always respect, and will
continue to respect, those who honor the will of peoples. The position taken
against our ambassador has led to a parallel measure on our part; we have
instructed their ambassador to leave Turkey by November 29, 2013."[30] The Turkish Foreign
Ministry also declared the Egyptian ambassador persona non grata and downgraded
its relations with Egypt to that of chargé d'affaire, stating: "This
situation grieves us, but the historical responsibility for it is borne by the provisional
Egyptian government that took power in the July 3 coup..."[31]

At the same
time, the deteriorating relations between the two countries found expression in
other areas: In August, around the time when the ambassadors were recalled, the
Egyptian Foreign Ministry announced the cancellation of the annual December joint
naval maneuvers with Turkey.[32] Also in late August, the
Egyptian Agriculture Ministry banned importing cotton from Turkey as well as agricultural
cooperation with it. Senior ministry official Ahmad Rifaat said that the
Egyptian economy would not be harmed by this measure, which, he said, was taken
due to Turkey's interference in Egypt's internal affairs and due to reports of
Turkish support for terrorist operations in Egypt.[33] The following week, it
was reported that Egyptian security forces raided the Cairo offices of the
official Turkish news agency Anadolu and shut them down.[34]

Displays
Of Popular Egyptian Anti-Turkey Protest

Egyptian anger against Turkey was
noticeable on the popular level as well. For example, Egyptian attorney Lutfi
Gayyid Ibrahim filed a lawsuit demanding that Egypt sever diplomatic relations
with Turkey and recall its ambassador from Ankara, to protest Erdogan's interference
in Egypt's affairs.[35] Additionally, throughout
August, demonstrations were held outside the Turkish consul's residence in Port
Said; protestors called on the Turkish government to respect the will of the
Egyptian people and delivered a letter of protest to the consul condemning
Erdogan's position and supporting the roadmap of Egyptian Defense Minister 'Abd
Al-Fattah Al-Sisi. The letter stated: "We are saddened that the Turkish prime
minister is biased towards an Egyptian faction whose failure in running the
country is proven."[36] Demonstrations were also held on November 16
outside the residence of the Turkish ambassador in Cairo.[37]

Demonstrators
burn Erdogan's photo during November 16 demonstration outside the residence of the
Turkish ambassador in Cairo

In further protest
over Erdogan's support for the MB, private Egyptian television channels,
including CBC, Al-Kahera Wal Nas and Al-Nahar, halted their broadcasts of
Turkish soap operas. CBC manager Muhammad Hani called this a harsh message
reflecting Egyptians' opposition to Turkey's anti-Egypt position, as well as to
Turkey's support for terrorism and the MB.[38] Additionally, Egyptian television
host Neshat Al-Dihi resigned during the live
broadcast of his weekly program on Turkey's official Arabic-language channel
TRT in protest against Erdogan's position; he said that he would have been
ashamed to continue working for the channel in the absence of a formal apology
to Egypt by Erdogan.[39]

At the same
time, popular campaigns for boycotting Turkish products emerged. The Union of
Sufis in Egypt launched such a campaign, calling it "Safeguard Your
Country," to protest against Erdogan's insult to the Sheikh of Al-Azhar. Union
secretary Dr. 'Abdallah Al-Nasser Hilmi said: "We demand that the Turkish
people swiftly remove Erdogan and his government, because this government is
setting Turkey back, and is setting it in a hostile position vis-à-vis fraternal
countries like Egypt and other Arab countries." The Coalition of Egyptian
Sufis announced that it had approached Sufis in Turkey asking that they oppose
Erdogan's position on Egypt as well.[40]

Calls for boycotting Turkish
products also spread via social media:

A Facebook campaign to "Boycott
Turkish Goods Because Of Erdogan" (source:Facebook, November 24, 2013)

Articles In
Egyptian Press Against Erdogan's Position On Mursi's Ouster

Al-Ahram Editorial: Erdogan's Position Stems From
His Fear Of Ending Up Like Mursi

The Egyptian press has published
numerous articles condemning Erdogan's position on Mursi's ouster. The official
Egyptian Al-Ahram's August 29 editorial states: "No one knows for
sure what Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants from Egypt and its
people. Does he think that it was he who was running their affairs during the
year of MB rule in Egypt? [Did he think] during the rule of ousted president
Muhammad Mursi Egypt that Egypt had become an Ottoman province that belonged to
him...? [Erdogan] is afflicted by a lack of the political balance [that is crucial]
for great statesmen and leaders, especially for a substantial regional power
such as Turkey. Since the removal of his only ally in the region, the
statements coming out of his mouth have been inappropriate for diplomacy, for politics,
or for relations between countries.

"The torrent
of Erdogan's attacks on Egypt included his... assault on the Grand Imam – Al-Azhar
Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Al-Tayeb, the admired and internationally respected religious
scholar. [It would seem] that Mr. Erdogan wanted the entire world to act
according to his narrow view and his blind support of the MB regime. [Erdogan]
did not like the Grand Imam's position and his support for Egypt or the June 30
revolution... We can't help but wonder... about the motives for Erdogan's and
Turkish officials' attack on Egypt and its leaders, that has been continuing
since the June 30 revolution. Does [this attack] stem from the loss of an ally
and fellow member of the international [MB], or from fear of a similar
fate?"[41]

Fortune teller to Erdogan:
"Take heed before it is too late. You have no business in Egypt, unless
you want to suffer the same fate as the MB" (source: Ahram-canada.com,
July 24, 2013)

Erdogan Threatens Egypt's National Security

Another Al-Ahram editorial
states: "It is amazing that the Turkish prime minister persists in his
stubbornness, and continues to destroy Egypt-Turkey relations... Instead of being
concerned about the Arabs' and Muslims' most important problem – the liberation
of Palestine and Al-Aqsa Mosque – Erdogan and his government are sunk in the swamp
of Syria, supporting terrorist organizations, and even following [Sheikh
Yousuf] Al-Qaradhawi and inciting against Egypt and its army. [Additionally,
they are] hosting the global terrorist MB organization, to conspire against
Egypt and its peaceful people..."[42]

Cairo
University political science professor Nourhan Al-Sheikh wrote: "Shortly
before the Arab Spring revolutions, the alliance between Erdogan and the MB was
revealed, and both sides began together to plan how to enable the MB to hijack
the revolutions of our free peoples in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and
the rest of the Arab countries... Erdogan and his government blatantly
interfered in Egypt's internal affairs in a way that threatens our national
security by unprecedentedly supporting the MB. Erdogan even took the liberty of
discussing Egypt's internal situation during meetings of the international MB
in Istanbul, and of making decisions that could destabilize Egypt and enable
extremist organizations to carry out terrorist activity in our beloved homeland,
terrorizing Egyptians and killing our innocent civilians and soldiers..."[43]

Columnist and Sadat Democratic
Party head Dr. 'Effat Sadat[44] wrote in the Egyptian daily
Al-Yawm Al-Sabi': "I cannot describe Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan's [reaction] to what happened to the MB in Egypt as anything
other than 'Erdogan-like prostitution.' The Ottoman prime minister refuses to
recognize the popular will that was expressed by protests unprecedented in
history...

"Over the
last decade, Erdogan has tried to present himself as moderate and cultured, and
to this end he licked the boots of the Europeans so they would add his country
to the European Union – which they have so far refused to do. His hopes were
eventually dashed, because of the exposure of his ugly face following the
Egyptian people's June 30 revolution. [At that time,] Erdogan revealed his true
face of hatred of culture, development, democracy, and belief in freedom of
opinion and expression, by supporting the MB's terrorism. He even refused to
recognize an entire people's right to live in honor and freedom. When some of
his countrymen dared to peacefully oppose his policy, he brought them down, with
barrages of gas and bombs, violence, condemnations, and false accusations...

"The
Turkish prime minister did not stop at criticizing the events in Egypt and the
[Egyptian] regime. He turned to insulting the [Egyptian] military, police, and
national leaders, most recently the honorable Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayeb, the
Sheikh of Al-Azhar, in a desperate attempt to turn back the clock...

"[Erdogan's]
image of an ascetic Wali [Ottoman ruler], which he is trying to sell us, does
not change [the fact] that Turkey leads the Middle East in prostitution and in alcohol
and drug use. In fact, prostitution is legal in Turkey and is not considered a
crime..."[45]

Ibrahim Khalil, former editor of
the weekly Roz Al-Yousef, wrote: "What the Egyptians did [ousting
Mursi] set fire to the expansion policy of which Erdogan had dreamed of for so
long – as part of which Egypt would be a market for Turkish products. But the
miracle worked by Egyptians on June 30 shamed Erdogan in front of his people.
His support for the MB failed miserably...

"Erdogan's
shock over the end of the MB regime was deep, because he had banked on [the
scenario of] the return of the Ottoman Caliphate, from Egypt to Turkey via Gaza
and Syria, following the fall of Bashar Al-Assad. Erdogan's fantasy might have
led him and his government to the unexpected act of supporting terrorism by smuggling
funds – as was revealed by a complaint submitted to the [Turkish] prosecutor-general,
claiming that the Turkish ambassador [to Cairo] transferred cashto the MB in diplomatic mail pouches..."

Khalil added:
"During the rule of the ousted Muhammad Mursi, the Turkish ambassador was
like a Turkish high commissioner in Egypt. He controlled investments and closed
deals between the Turks and MB businessmen...

"Isn't it
time for the public to take initiative and boycott Turkish goods? The answer is
very simple – Yes... Egyptians should rise to the challenge and take
responsibility for knowing who is a friend and who is an enemy, who is
exploiting their suffering and who rushes to their side in time of trouble – as
the honorable Saudi King 'Abdallah did..."[46]

Prior to his arrest by the new
Egyptian regime, EgyptianMB Freedom and Justice Party deputy leader
Dr. 'Issam Al-'Arian expressed his party's praise for Erdogan's position and for
his refusal to meet with Egyptian leaders who were not elected by the people
but were appointed by the coup's organizers. He added that Erdogan's position
was is in line with democratic principles and constitutional values.[47]

The Egyptian daily
Al-Watan quoted a security source at the Burj Al-Arab prison, where
Mursi is held, as stating that Mursi had criticized the downgrading of Turkey-Egypt
diplomatic relations and had said:

"How can
they do this? Erdogan's statements bother them because he tells the truth. How
can they sever relations between powers like this... with such ease, after I strengthened
Egypt's relations with an important country like Turkey within a short period?"[48]

Mamdouh
Al-Wali, whom Mursi appointed head of Al-Ahram's board of directors and
who was removed from the post following Mursi's ouster, criticized the
downgrading of diplomatic relations, saying that it would negatively impact Egypt's
economic situation. In an article on the MB website, Al-Wali assessed that
Turkey would not keep its promise to increase investments in Egypt to $5
billion, and that it would reverse its intention to grant Egypt favorable
credit terms valued at $1 billion. Al-Wali further assessed that flights and
tourism between the two countries would be affected, as would relations between
the Cairo and Istanbul stock exchanges and joint agreements on health care,
energy, and electricity production.

Al-Wali added:
"It would appear that the damage to many sectors of the economy is the
result of a decision by the coup government to deliberately downgrade
diplomatic relations in order to humiliate the other side, without considering
the negative economic consequences of this rash decision. [Other] countries in
Africa and Europe have refused to recognize the military coup, yet we have not
treated them like we treated Turkey – which is the regional and military power in
the region that supports Egypt."[49]

The Al-Gama'a
Al-Islamiyya organization, which supports the MB, also objected to the expulsion
of the Turkish ambassador, calling it "an unacceptable escalation."
An official in Al Gama'a's Building and Development Party, its political wing,,
said that expelling the Turkish ambassador was not the solution because Egypt
does not need additional rivalries in the world, and called on the Egyptian
regime to reverse its decision. He added that Egypt would have been better off expelling
the Israeli ambassador.[50]

[7] In
July 2013, Gul sent greetings to Egyptian President 'Adly Mansour on the
anniversary of the Free Officers' Revolution of 1952. Gul's senior advisor
Arshad Hormozlu said, "The channels for dialogue with the new Egyptian
leadership are open," and added, "We don't support one side, but [support]
the Egyptian people that will decide for itself in its own appropriate
way." A source close to Erdogan tried to play down the importance of Gul's
position by saying that the position of president in Turkey is largely
ceremonial. In response to the downgrading of Turkey-Egypt diplomatic relations,
Gul said that he hoped that relations with Egypt would return to normal. Al-Sharq
Al-Awsat (London), July 25, 2013; Al-Wafd
(Egypt),
November 23, 2013.

[8]The
leaders of Turkey's main opposition party, the Republican People's party (CHP),
expressed their opposition to Erdogan's position by visiting Egypt in September
2013, at the invitation of the Egyptian authorities. In a meeting with Egyptian
Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmi, they expressed their
respect for the will of the Egyptian people and noted that their visit was
aimed at repairing the damage caused by Turkey's foreign policy. They also met
with the Sheikh of Al-Azhar to convey their opposition to Erdogan's insult of
him. Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 11, 2013.

[15]
The four-fingered gesture, associated with the Raba'a Al-'Adawiyya mosque in
Cairo and the pro-MB sit-down strike that took place there and was violently
broken up by Egyptian forces, has become known throughout the Arab world as a
symbol of support for Musri and the Egyptian MB.